Posted on 04/13/2008 8:20:52 AM PDT by ZacandPook
Because Ed did not bother to learn the history and the players (like the fact that Khalifa funded KSM’s and Hambali Bojinka, then he had lost the ability to analyze evidence relating to half of the factual investigation between done by the Task Force.
“Former Bin Laden friend [Khalifa] denies terror ties,” Christian Science Monitor, January 21, 2003
http://www.monitorweek.com/2003/0121/p07s01-wome.html
OBL’s brother-in-law Khalifa years later was killed when a group of men (apparently looters) raided his home in Madagascar where he had gone on gem business and stole his computer.
John O’ Brien and John Mariani, “Witness Freed - Suspect Held, “Iraqi Charity Probe,” Syracuse Post-Standard, March 4, 2003
http://mysite.verizon.net/vze43v8m/al-hawalilecture.html
This Ph.D. in animal genetics and worked as a food researcher at Washington State University before he moved to Syracuse. Although he mixed with silica, there is no indication he used a siliconizing solution.
“U.S. Raids N.Va. Office Of Saudi-Based Charity,” Washington Post, June 2, 2004; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7918-2004Jun1?language=printer
GMU computer security expert was volunteer here; he was deported the next month.
“Scholar is Given Life Sentence in ‘Virginia Jihad’ Case, New York Times, July 14, 2005
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9801EED8103DF937A25754C0A9639C8B63
Director Mueller had announced a deadline of October 1, 2004 for an indictment in Amerithrax; Al-Timimi was indicted in late September 2004 for sedition. It was only later his lawyer explained the DOJ viewed him as an anthrax weapons suspect.
“N.Y. man [Mohammed Junaid Babar] admits he aided al Qaeda set up jihad camp,” CNN, August 11, 2004
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/08/11/ny.terror.suspect/
There is no shortage of candidates for mailer.
“Man Accused of Aiding Terrorists Called ‘Moderate’, Washington Post, August 12, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58065-2004Aug11.html
Indeed, the fellow mirroring Al Qaeda’s website was in North Brunswick, NJ, 6 miles from the mailbox.
John O’Brien “Virus nearly exposed FBI’s Dhafir probe: Internet corruption called Klez.h sent a bureau e-mail to the Manlius doctor,” Syracuse Post-Standard, November 5, 2004
You mean, everyone didn’t get on of those?
“FBI Says N.Y. Man Had Beltway Blueprints,” Associated Press, November 6, 2004; Page A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A29164-2004Nov5.html?referrer=email
Authored on anthrax in JAMA, from where Kathy Nguyen died, had moved from Falls Church, and represented by Lynne Stewart’s partner.
“U.S. Letter Tries To Establish a Doctor’s Links to Terrorists,” New York Times, dated November 6, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/nyregion/06detain.html
“Views of Va. Muslim Leader Differ as Terror Trial Opens,” Washington Post, April 5, 2005
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25632-2005Apr4.html
“Scholar ‘rock star’ to young,” Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, April 5, 2005
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_320656.html
Blogger and Al-Timimi Umar Lee tells me this description is hyped - Royer was the leader of Virginia Paintball group, not Ali. But surely the young men sought Ali’s religious advice on even the most minor matters and he was highly influential.
“Suspect and A Setback In Al-Qaeda Anthrax Case,” Washington Post, October 31, 2006, A1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/30/AR2006103001250.html
“Hardball Tactics in an Era of Threats,” Washington Post, September 3, 2006, A1
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/02/AR2006090201096.html
The key “POI” of the other squad was 15 feet from Ed’s key expert and he didn’t even know!
“FBI Focusing on ‘About Four’ Suspects in 2001 Anthrax Attacks,” FoxNews, March 28, 2008
But don’t worry. He’s “comfortable” with the FoxNews report. Heck, one of them may bowl after all.
As the evidence grew that Al Qaeda had weaponized anthrax, Ed had to turn to esoteric meaningless debates like the difference between Vander Waals and electrostatic forces. He took to drawing artful cartoons titled “Suzy The Spore” rather than deal with evidence of anthrax spraydrying documents or “extremely virulent” anthrax found.
“Pentagon: al-Qaeda pursuing bio weapons,” USA Today, May 23, 2003
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-05-23-us-wmd_x.htm
“U.S. Action Halted Al-Qaeda WMD Effort in Afghanistan, Officials Say,” Global Security News, January 27. 2004
http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2004/1/27/7baa26da%2D6715%2D4fbb%2D8405%2D44d4ce721836.html
“Interrogation: Al Qaeda and Anthrax,” Newsweek, April 12, 2004
http://www.newsweek.com/id/53638
“Al-Qaida made surprising advances in ‘Agent X’ “, Associated Press, March 31, 2005
http://www.terroralertsaferoom.com/articles/article/1930708/25126.htm
“Qaeda Letters Are Said to Show Pre9/11 Anthrax Plans,” New York Times, May 21, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/21/politics/21anthrax.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
The article does not take into account that the handwritten letter preceded the typed correspondence.
“Al-Qaeda Gathered Equipment for Biological Weapons Laboratory Before 9/11, Documents Indicate,” Global Security News, May 23, 2005
http://www.nti.org/d%5Fnewswire/issues/2005/5/23/4f4713f6%2D87ba%2D4d4c%2Db4a2%2Dc08e0aee1895.html
Getman, “Anthrax Mystery: Evidence Points to al-Qaida,” Newsmax, June 7, 2007
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/6/163931.shtml?s=lh
He would disagree with whatever the DARPA contract expert on understanding the distinct signature of the anthrax posted on FreeRepublic.
“Distinct signature found in ’01 anthrax,” Baltimore Sun, July 4, 2004
http://www.ph.ucla.edu/EPI/bioter/distinctsignatures.html
TrebleRebel took a day explaining the recent Aerosol study before letting me give to Ed so that he could explain the science before it was mangled. What did Ed do without even reading it? He said the authors were NUTS! and the suggestion they had used silica to weaponize anthrax for years at Dugway was BIZARRE!
While I was out doing some chores, I remembered reading something that I should have mentioned. It's on the first page of the report by the people from the CDC and Dugway:
Disclaimer. The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.
So, the report is just the conclusions of the authors. Nothing official.
Ed,
As a matter of logic, they have actually been doing it.
So they know it is floatable when processed with silica because they used silica and watched it float.
So just as we do not need a governmental statement the earth is not flat, we do not need a government statement that Dugway folks have been using silica to make weaponized anthrax.
The Daschle anthrax did not actually look like what was pictured in the recent study. It is a siliconized solution makes anthrax float like a butterfly and sting like a bee (and results in SEMS that look like that).
So it may be that it is only your suggestion that it makes no sense to use silica that is wrong. The EDX shows the silica spike upon use of siliconized solution. Yet it appears to be individual pure spores in the SEMS.
Google “siliconized solution” and you’ll see the “signature.”
I meant “siliconizing solution.”
So, the scientists still agree that silicon plus oxygen still equals silica, huh? That certainly is good to know! :)
Operation Golden Frog was a total success.
Although it was on a strictly need to know basis, there was a parallel
Operation Recycled Frog ongoing at the same time.
I made this video to launch and commemorate it:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Frog0130
What about "polymerized glass?"
According to Gary Mastumoto's article in Science, the attack anthrax contained "polymerized glass." Yet AFIP never mentioned any "polymerized glass" being in the Daschle anthrax.
I've been trying to get TrebelRebel to give us his opinion about who screwed up. Was it AFIP or was it Gary Matsumoto?
You guys seem to be hung up on the word "bizarre." Don't you know what it means?
Bizarre; odd or curious.
Isn't the article even a little bit odd or curious?
1. The entire article is based on the notion that the attack anthrax used a process developed at Dugway over 40 years ago, even though there is an abundance of evidence which says that is total nonsense.
2. The article describes in pretty good detail a process used at Dugway to create "weaponized anthrax" back during the Cold War.
Isn't even a little bit odd or curious?
Since when have government agencies been publishing details about making bioweapons?
Why would a CDC branch in Cincinnati find a need to publish a document that says it is "believed" that some of the material used in the 2001 attacks was in a "fluidized" form, meaning: containing fumed silica?
How come some scientists from Dugway agreed to provide for this paper a description of how they made such anthrax back during the Cold War along with a supply of simulants they made 40 years ago?
How come this information was published in an article about sampling methods and not in an article where KNOWN information (versus believed nonsense) about the powders used in the anthrax attacks of 2001 is also provided?
I appreciate that such information was released, but doesn't anyone else see anything odd or curious in the way it was done?
You are the scientist. Maybe you can explain this to me.
As to what is odd and curious, I understand all the robotics, automatic production, and even the arc reactor in IRON MAN. But how does Obadiah bring a Ray’s pizza from New York City to Malibu and it’s still hot and fresh?
Did they pay for the product display?
Based on the previews, ANDROMEDA STRAIN and THE HAPPENING both have overtones of an aerosolized anthrax attack on New York City and Washington, D.C. An epidemic of measles (such is feared at summer camp in New York), where the virus remains in the doctor’s room for 2 hours, is scarier than anthrax delivered by mail. Yet the voiceover in film coverage typically uses such a serious tone. When you go back to hear Don Foster, BHR, and Assad’s attorney solemnly intone on the subject — leading to the conclusion it is an insider — you realize how much remains intact of much of BHR’s analysis. Even Dr. Assaad’s analysis. It will take a breakthrough article by the NYT, WP or Hartford Courant to put the Al-Timimi filing (where his lawyer has always suspected him as an anthrax weapons suspect) in the context of the FoxNews report.
What happened to the two pictures of spores created by the Dugway process?
Were they removed because copyrights were violated?
Were they removed because they used too much bandwidth?
Were they removed because they showed that the Dugway process had nothing to do with the anthrax attack of 2001?
Were they removed because you could no longer use them to persuade people your beliefs are the only correct beliefs?
Or was there some other reason?
They disappeared because they had been uploaded from my webpage where I had temporarily uploaded them to facilitate their uploading. I don’t understand computers and didn’t realize that when I took the pictures off my webpage it would knock them out here.
Ah. Okay. Thanks. The code for linking in pictures causes the pictures to come from the place where YOU put (or found) them. They're not on FreeRepublic anywhere. If you want, you can restore the pictures to where they were on your webpage and they will reappear in this thread. The code to do it is still in place.
Then there is the issue of the inverted plasmid.
Bioforensics Program BAA08-04
Bacterial Population Genetics in a Forensics Context
(BPGFC)
Published: 03/04/2008
Amended: 4/16/2008
***
The threat of terrorist or criminal use of pathogenic organisms and their toxins remains of great concern in the United States. There are vulnerabilities and needs to perform microbial forensic analyses for attribution purposes in a rigorous scientific manner. As part of the effort to deter biological terrorism and strengthen the law enforcement response to such an
act, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 10, “Biodefense for the 21st Century” established a dedicated central microbial forensic laboratory known as the National Bioforensics Analysis Center (NBFAC), as part of the Department of Homeland Security to provide bioforensics analysis of evidence associated with the event. The NBFAC operates in partnership with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the lead investigative agency in acts of terrorism. This BAA seeks research in the discipline of bacterial population genetics to support the NBFAC’s mission for evidentiary analysis and
interpretation of results to support the FBI’s criminal investigation. The ultimate goal of this joint mission is to provide sound scientific data and analysis supporting attribution analysis leading to the capture, indictment, and prosecution of the perpetrator(s) of the biocrime or terrorist attack.
The NBFAC has instituted a robust molecular biology program to enhance the genomic analysis of the major biological threat agents. The NBFAC continues to expand its operational capabilities for the identification and characterization of the major CDC category A and B agents. The Bioforensics Research and Development Program continues research investments in next generation technologies to support molecular biology and
genotyping techniques capable of characterizing a biothreat agent at the isolate level to better understand the microorganism’s origin and evolutionary history. However, a significant gap exists in the forensics communities understanding of the meaningful interpretation of genotyping/profiling results. Unlike its applications in human DNA analysis, which deals with one species exhibiting diploid sexual reproduction, the bacterial
threat agents pose a more complex problem for the interpretation of genomic data. The bacterial threat agents are haploid organisms propagating asexually and have always been thought to be purely clonal in nature, but population variation does exist even within what have been assumed to be clonal populations, such as a single colony on a Petri-plate. In addition, there are other substantial genetic issues related to interpretation including horizontal gene transfer, recombination, gene duplication and deletion. Hence, there is need for a better understanding of the underlying genomic and population dynamics at both intra and inter-species levels.
Program Objectives
The goal of this research program is to develop algorithms and/or analytical tools that will assist biocrime and bioterror investigations by providing precision and statistical power to inferences concerning the degree of relatedness (based upon matching comparisons) of biothreat agents. The focus of this effort will be on research in the areas of microbial
ecology, population dynamics, genetic stability, host-pathogen interaction, statistical inference, and match criteria for the following select agents: Bacillus anthracis, Yersinia pestis, Clostridium botulinum, Francisella tularensis, Brucella spp., Escherichia coli O157:H7, Burkholderia mallei, Burkholderia pseudomallei. The objectives include:
¥ Improving our understanding of the population genetics of these pathogens to include research on genome stability, host preferences and interactions, genetic mobility of virulence factors, identification of polymorphic sites and mutational hot spots, geographical distribution, microbial ecology, pathogen lifecycles, natural reservoirs and effects of host – pathogen interaction.
¥ Improving methods for determining rates of mutation and recombination of the pathogen genomes and the identification of adaptive mutations that can have forensic utility
¥ Establishing match criteria for discriminating “difference” or “sameness” in
sample comparisons. Define the parameters for inclusion or exclusion in the
context of a known sample and questioned sample. This must be backed by
statistical parameters for acceptance or rejection of the null hypothesis
¥ Developing efficient, economical, and statistically rigorous sampling strategies to acquire spatially referenced genetic information on reservoirs of these pathogens
¥ Developing bioinformatics-based analytical tools for supporting hypotheses
testing regarding pathogen origin that go beyond current phylogeny-based
inferential methods and can meet forensic (legal) admissibility requirements of relevance and reliability.
Background and Motivation
Current forensic analysis of biological threat agents is impeded by lack of knowledge of the underlying population genetics and ecology of the pathogens. In addition, there is a void in the availability of bioinformatics tools necessary to analyze and validate the data that forensics investigators collect from incidence sites. An understanding of pathogen population genetics including ecology, phylogeny, lifecycles, genome stability, mutation rates, recombination rates, epidemiology, host preferences and interactions, geographic distribution and other source information, virulence factors, polymorphic sites and mutation hot spots will be necessary to interpret the results from the application of multiple typing methods (e.g. MLST, VNTR, SNP, InDel, SSRs etc) and use of these techniques to compare “likeness” of isolates associated with a bioforensic investigation. The population genetics will likely be different for each pathogen; hence the typing strategy is also likely to be different. For example, pathogens with stable genomes might be more amenable to source tracking through SNP analysis than pathogens with unstable genomes. Furthermore, as typing data on the pathogens is generated, it will need to be organized, archived and managed in a form that is functional and accessible for forensic analysis. To further complicate the genotyping challenge is the rapid emergence of Next-Generation
whole genome sequencing technologies, e.g., Roche (GS-20 FLX/454 Pyrosequencing), Illumina (Genome Analyzer System), and ABI (SOLiD) which will provide faster and cheaper whole genome sequences. These platforms will potentially displace many of the traditional genotyping techniques in the near future by providing a much richer body of data associated with a whole genome sequence. This will increase by orders of magnitude the sequence data available for microorganisms. Therefore, development of statistically based methodologies to compare whole genome sequences and sort through the maze of data for match comparisons is critical to adequately make use of these powerful new methods.
In addition to an understanding of the population genetics of the pathogens, bioinformatic tools that can bring statistical power and degrees of confidence to the results will need to be developed in order to make an assessment of “match” criteria for comparative forensic purposes. In other words, can reliable inferences be made when a biological threat agent
found at a crime scene is compared to a sample found at a suspect’s home laboratory or place of employment? These tools should have the power to effectively describe the quantitative criteria and provide statistical support as to the likelihood or degree of similarity. These computational tools will need to be developed, standardized and well documented and will be required to produce understandable, explainable and defensible results in a forensic setting.
The program will be separated into two phases. The phase I program goal is to produce a paper study that not only reviews the current level of understanding in terms of population genetics and bioinformatics tools available for each of the eight agents, but also makes recommendations for follow on experiments and research plan that can be performed in
phase II to fill in the knowledge gaps necessary for rigorous forensic data analysis. Phase I awardees have the opportunity to apply for phase II. The phase II program goal is to develop and perform experimental studies that fill in the gaps in current knowledge of the population genetics of the eight select agents as well as to develop new algorithms and
bioinformatics tools to enhance statistical analysis and inference for forensic pathogen analysis. Phase II will consist of two tasks: a computational/bioinformatics task and a laboratory-based experimental task. Proposers may choose to perform one or both tasks or establish a team with other institutions to address both tasks. Teaming is highly encouraged.
Comment:
For the identification of those responsible for the Fall 2001 mailings, researchers are encouraged to go to “Summons to Conquest.”
http://www.anthraxandalqaeda.com
“Does it look like I’m negotiating?” — George Clooney, in Michael Clayton
The comment concludes with this analogy:
I feel like I've been arguing for years with people who believed that they knew about a super-sophisticated way to travel across America: by horse and buggy. And I've been arguing that it is absolutely ridiculous to believe that anyone would ever travel across America by horse and buggy. And now we've suddenly both been been informed that there was a time, many many years ago, when lots of people actually did travel across America by horse and buggy.
Live and learn.
Ed, your comment is inconsistent with the fact that the method used to create the Dugway simulant has been used since 1998 in making simulants. For example, it was the method used to make the Dugway simulant used in the Canadian aerosol study done after the threatened use of anthrax in connection with the detention with Vanguards of Conquest #2, Mahmoud Mahjoub.
The study results issued on September 10, 2001. The study found that the simulant leaked from the envelope before opening and that it immediately dispersed to the other side of the room upon opening.
Here is authority for the proposition that your “horse and buggy” comment makes no sense. The same Dugway simulant was currently being used in aerosol tests re the anthrax threat posed by the islamists. See February 2001 PDB. See also Science article describing mixing at the Wisconsin dairy processor. It leaked from the envelope before opening and immediately dispersed throughout the room.
“Risk Assessment of anthrax threat letters,” Defence R&D Canada, September 2001
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:Q_K1qaORsMQJ:ehs.ucdavis.edu/ucbso/ReferenceDoc/RiskAssessmentofAnthrax.pdf+%22Bacterial+envelope+mailed+to+minister%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
If so, then the results of the study don't really relate to the attack anthrax.
Maybe they used the "horse and buggy" method because it would be against the law to develop NEW methods.
The point is: It's an OLD method, and it has NOTHING to do with the way the attack anthrax was created. The attack anthrax was created the way insecticides are created.
People still use horse and buggies, today. Just visit Amish country in Pennsylvania.
You always try to go off into irrelevant areas just to create arguments. What's important here is:
1. The method used by Dugway to make simulants for these studies has NOTHING to do with the anthrax in the letters mailed in 2001.
2. The CDC report said it was "believed" that the anthrax letters used fumed silica. They believed incorrectly.
3. The coating on the spores created by Dugway is NOT put there to nullify van der Waals forces; it's an unfortunate effect and/or requirement resulting from the static electricity put into the spores by the MILLING process.
4. The attack anthrax was NOT MILLED. OTHER methods were used to avoid static electricity buildup, and those methods did NOT require the used of silica.
So, all these side issues from the horse and buggie days have NOTHING to do with the anthrax attacks of 2001.
Ed,
As to the Daschle product, and what best approximates it, I’ve gotten extensive responses from a senior military scientist who makes anthrax simulant for the government concerning his view of the relevance (or not) of that aerosol study. That’s who it makes sense to consult. It doesn’t make sense to consult a webposter who has no science background, experience in aerosol science, has never made anthrax simulant, and didn’t even realize that was how Dugway was making the simulant commonly used in aerosol experiments. So while I encourage you to consider the true crime aspects and welcome the sharing of published unclassified information about the microbial forensics, I recommend it doesn’t make sense to discuss the science. That role is best served by qualified experts. As for the effectiveness of the Dugway simulant used in the Canadian study, its performance is subjective to objective measurement. As I said, it immediately dispersed across the room. That’s not horse and buggy speed. That’s jet speed. It performed comparably in dispersal to the Daschle product. The relatively uniform 1 micron size of the Daschle product was notable to be sure, but for the purpose of causing infection, it was overkill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.